| Show WHAT IS THE difference WHAT AT is the difference between belief wat that the silver law is infamous and the opinion that another law is not essential to mOM morality lItY if this opinion entertained by some estimable men should disqualify them from exercising any political politic nI right or privilege should not that belter belief work in the someway same sam way ewaY we think d is disfranchisement disfranchise for opinion is so out that its advocacy is akin to a crime but we see no difference between the guilt if any involved in opinion as aa to one law and belief ug as to another no ma matter ater how different the two laws may be the liberal of cM mormon ormon disfranchisement diff ranch isemena for 0 r belief now DOW aabye the difference is this the silver men are working for a repeat repeal ol of that law and in the meantime they are claiming that until repealed it is entitled to the fall obedience of the american people the otter other law the saints arb ara not trying to have repealed but bat they are disobeying it all the same then it is all right to call a law in famous if you are working for its repeal but all wrong to express the opinion that another law to ie un necee sary if you are not working for its repeal you may say aay what you like about a law that you try to get repealed and you are truly loil but if you have au opinion as to another law that you are not trying to repeal you are disloyal and unfit to wield the ballot or hold office under this government lovely logic to is it not but that is 19 common omune argument ah but tills this profound reasoner will say bay while these persons hold bold such buch opinions they are afe disobeying the law in question stop a minute this dispute arose arosa over the replies of some gome gentlemen to questions ju in court as to their belief the evidence was wals that they had always obeyed the law jaw they so testified under oath and the tribune says they would not perjure themselves to save the church from going to the dop dogs 11 yet their belief was made the ground of the argument for the disfranchisement of all persons who liko them have not disobeyed the law would not disobey it aud and who wink think it lally aud and morally wrong to violate it so this element of disobedience which the dishonest sophist now seeks to bring in does not count the falsehood of his assertion about the saints does not matter it cuts no figure in this funeral his hia argument is dead and cold and if he had any sense he would bury it out of sight and smell disfranchisement of good true honest capable capably law obeying citizens because they believe that in the absence sence of law jaw and gospel forbidding it a certain practice might inight riot not be a crime is so contrary to every principle oj of republican government and so hostile to every sentiment of justice city that its advocates advocat is ts ought to be despised by every lover over of his country and every friend of freedom |
